A/HRC/43/41/Add.3 70. The paradigm shift introduced by the Convention requires that support be provided to those who might need it, while at the same time fully respecting their human rights, including the right to freely decide about their lives and care options. Coercion is not a “necessary evil”, but a consequence of the failure of States to ensure their human rights obligations towards persons with disabilities, particularly in relation to the rights to legal capacity, living independently in the community, the highest attainable standard of health, an adequate standard of living and social protection. The discussion on the proposed law is an important opportunity for Norway to further advance in its commitment to promoting and protecting human rights for everyone on an equal basis, in line with the Convention. K. Denial of legal capacity 71. The Guardianship Act, reformed in 2013, regulates two types of guardianships: “ordinary” guardianship based on an administrative decision by county governors and guardianship with restrictions of legal capacity through a court decision. In the first instance, a broad range of persons with disabilities, especially those with intellectual disabilities, psychosocial disabilities, dementia, high support needs and autistic persons, can have a guardian appointed to manage their personal and/or financial affairs. While, as a general rule, this regime is voluntary, formal consent is not required if the person is deemed “unable to consent”, which contradicts its voluntariness. In the second instance, a district court can order the restriction of a person’s legal capacity through guardianship against their will. The Act further stipulates that county governors are the local authority for “ordinary” guardianships, with responsibility to appoint, recruit, train and supervise guardians and manage the funds of persons under guardianship. The Norwegian Civil Affairs Authority is the national guardianship authority, responsible for overseeing the performance of country governors and is the appellate body for guardianship decisions. 72. Although the 2013 reform aimed to address the paradigm shift of the Convention, in practice the guardianship system focuses on representation rather than on supported decision-making and still allows for limitations in the exercise of legal capacity. According to the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, as of October 2019 there were 236 adults with court-ordered restrictions on their legal capacity and 40,775 adults under ordinary guardianship, of whom 40 per cent (some 17,000) were considered unable to consent and had thus been placed under ordinary guardianship involuntarily. The Special Rapporteur was informed that most mandates are not tailored to specific circumstances, but are rather general and broad. In many cases, county governors appoint guardians without interviewing the persons concerned. There is also a reliance on professional guardians, many of whom are lawyers, who each handle a large number of cases. For example, in the county of Oslo and Akershus there are approximately 13,000 persons under guardianship, with 214 professional guardians collectively representing 5,542 persons, an average of 26 persons for each guardian. Under such circumstances, it is unlikely that an individual’s will and preferences can be adequately attended to and respected. 73. According to its interpretative declaration on article 12 of the Convention, Norway considers that the treaty does not require States parties to repeal all legislation and regimes of substitute decision-making, in open disagreement with the interpretation of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the openness, genuine interest and efforts of the Government to discuss this disagreement in a constructive manner. In her view, concerns regarding the elimination of all forms of supported decision-making are unfounded, as Norway has all the conditions to develop formal and informal supported decision-making arrangements of varying types and intensity to support the exercise of legal capacity. In cases where a person’s will and preferences cannot be established after significant efforts, a “best interpretation of their will and preferences” should ascertain what the person would have wanted, instead of deciding on the basis of their best interest. Supported decision-making can also play an important role in situations of emotional crisis or distress, facilitating non-coercive responses within or outside the mental health sector. Moreover, advance directives allow persons with disabilities to give instructions on how to deal with future crises and/or appoint someone to 15